Trump promises to remove Freedom of the Press from the Constitution

[Herkmeister]

The only people who think that are a small number of those who like their bias. Most of those who like their bias aren't aware of the bleed through - which is abundant.

Obviously those who don't like their bias feel differently, but most of them probably don't recognize this fictional separation either. And that's surely intentional on the part of Fox.

Sure, as Trad points out, everyone can tell the screaming food fights from the rest. But people still expect they are being told the truth by anchors and other main on-screen figures. So when they present one side and not the other, most viewers think that's the whole story. And when their "sources" are "some people say..." most are not skilled enough to filter out the garbage.

The idea that people don't take what O'Reily or Hannity say seriously because "everybody knows they are just entertainment" is facile. Of course people think they are telling them the truth. Not merely the truth, either - but what's important. So when they talk about the need to be energy independent and dismiss or never discuss climate change, that's feeding a narrative that viewers accept as a factual and relevant reflection of what's important in the world.

And, no, it's not just FOX. But FOX does it the most and does the deception part more seemlessly than then rest.

This is part of why we need to have a national conversation about what counts as "press" in the constitutional sense.

WWJD, I'd only dispute your statements in one area. Persuasion is not only part of politics, it's part of life. I certainly persuasion is a part of Fox & CNN. I would not condemn certain talking heads for making persuasion a part of their shows.

 

[Jakeleg Jake]

The problem here is not the First Amendment...it isn't going anywhere...the problem is they(media) abuse it, lie, commit journalistic fraud and think they can hide behind it...that is what Trump wants to change and I am with him. Please folks do not show your ignorance by saying he wants to obliterate it...that is just plain stupid.

 

[naturalmwa]

Spoken like someone who has already decided it's OK to let the FOXes run the hen house (pun intended) and now only criticizes those who remind him that he has sold out.

It's the only industry specifically protected in the constitution by name. We should be asking why. What was the point of explicitly protecting that industry and no others? What function does that serve? And is what we call "press" today serving that function?

That's the national conversation I'd like to see.

I would argue that Wikileaks performs the press function better than FOX - and perhaps better than WaPo and other less obviously dishonest media.

This is commonly asserted, but I don't think its correct. The press in the first amendment isn't a reference to journalists. Its a reference to the printing press, a bit of equipment that congress can't regulate.

 

[Herkmeister]

A shame you cons didn't object to it when the right wing Heritage folks thought it up, or when Romney passed it in Mass. Or when it was revealed in Obamacare around this time in 2009.

What were you thinking? And why should we pay attention to you now? That's sort of like thinking Hillary is anti-war because 5 years later she decided maybe the Iraq war wasn't a good idea after all. Not credible.

I think you fail to give Americans credit. The talking heads are looking stupid this year. They all predicted Trump would be gone early. To me it appears they are scratching their heads and licking their wounds as they realize they don't have the persuasive abilities they thought.

 

[Herkmeister]

The problem here is not the First Amendment...it isn't going anywhere...the problem is they(media) abuse it, lie, commit journalistic fraud and think they can hide behind it...that is what Trump wants to change and I am with him. Please folks do not show your ignorance by saying he wants to obliterate it...that is just plain stupid.

I agree but................. I don't see why any change is necessary. We can litigate now.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

The problem here is not the First Amendment...it isn't going anywhere...the problem is they(media) abuse it, lie, commit journalistic fraud and think they can hide behind it...that is what Trump wants to change and I am with him. Please folks do not show your ignorance by saying he wants to obliterate it...that is just plain stupid.

I agree. We don't agree all that much, so it's worth mentioning.

 

[Jakeleg Jake]

I agree but................. I don't see why any change is necessary. We can litigate now.

Sure you can litigate...that isn't the issue...can you win...that is the issue.

 

[naturalmwa]

Sure you can litigate...that isn't the issue...can you win...that is the issue.

Actually the issue is what you would need to change in order to win.

 

[Herkmeister]

Sure you can litigate...that isn't the issue...can you win...that is the issue.

But that's always the question and new precedents are what determines change.

 

[Jakeleg Jake]

But that's always the question and new precedents are what determines change.

No bud...the question is do you spend thousands not knowing if you can win...

 

[Herkmeister]

No bud...the question is do you spend thousands not knowing if you can win...

Well that goes without saying for us mortals. And is the reason lawyers ask "What are your damages?"

 

[Jakeleg Jake]

Well that goes without saying for us mortals. And is the reason lawyers ask "What are your damages?"

You are so right...first question is "are you still working"...still doesn't make it right if anyone is ever put in that position.

 

[thedirtyglass]

It really is mind blowing. The entire Trump fiasco is the politicians fault. .

FIFY.

we can thank our politicians for being big enough scumbags and generally dislikable jackasses. does anybody else get nauseated when they hear a politician talk about how they are "for the people", or how they will "shake things up" when they get to DC.

 

[Herkmeister]

FIFY.

we can thank our politicians for being big enough scumbags and generally dislikable jackasses. does anybody else get nauseated when they hear a politician talk about how they are "for the people", or how they will "shake things up" when they get to DC.

One of the reasons I hope Hill strokes out during the campaign. She has it coming. And Rubio makes me puke too. Talk about a guy who can't handle the job. I'll take the leader who has Washington scared shitless. (How long before they have him killed?)